Screenshot Comparisons 4K

[andreasy969]

Manhunt (2017)

The movie doesn't get much love, but it's getting a lot of caps. This ended up being more extensive than I intended to - I guess just can't do small ones ...

As I indicated before, this looks sharpened to me more often than not throughout (incl. some obvious ringing and aliasing), but there are exceptions as well (#23 for ex). Having said that, I'm not sure if the sharpening isn't (at least sometimes/partly) just baked into the source, since I think I can spot hints of it on the softer BD caps as well. The same goes for DNR resp. a sometimes rather processed look at any rate. The sharpening is also nothing I'd call distracting when actually watching the disc (that's especially with me still watching downscaled). It's more a case of the sharpness looking "fishy" to me sometimes.

Other than the sharpening, there's more detail as well, the awful banding is gone (#1 and #7), the poor compression is gone (#8), there's plenty of (both "real" - #31 being a good example - and maybe "not so real") HDR (as you can see by the rather large amount of additional caps) and colors and contrast look better to me as well (both via madVR/PC and via projector). Very happy with my purchase.

(And yes, I actually do like this movie - enough to give the UHD another try because of the terrible banding that can be found on the BD. It's by no means a masterpiece, but I think it's solid old-school-John-Woo shooting action fun. I'll be re-watching this over Windtalkers any day.)

I do have some additional comments below (got literally tired towards the end though ).

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/117401

BD (upscaled) left, UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) right

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim:

[Show spoiler]Please note that the UHD-BD shots have been converted from HDR to SDR using special techniques, which drastically compresses the dynamic range of the original image (the color bit depth has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colors (tone and intensity) and contrast should be taken with a big pinch of salt and the main focus should be on comparing details. Typically, the image will appear too dark (which is by design when the caps are done at 200 nits; on its own they should be viewed with monitor brightness set to 200 nits), may lack a certain "pop" and may at times also appear "boosted" when compared to the BD shots. The SDR conversion should still give you a good idea of the actual image of the UHD-BD though and one should also be able to at least catch a glimpse of the increased dynamic range. The BD shots have been upscaled for comparison purposes, but other than that should be accurate. You might also want to check out this post of mine (incl. the further link there) where I tried to show/explain this:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=589

1. the awful banding is gone

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. the title looks much better on the UHD

7. another example of the awful banding being gone

8. and the poor compression being gone as well

9.

10.

11. the BD is having some chroma problems here (look at the purple/green fringing on the building with the red square; the obvious green finging on the building at the top in the middle; the water doesn't look nice on the BD either)

12. nice detail increase on the ceiling (#3 1000 nits)

13.

14. the shots of him look particularly sharpened to me in this scene (with rather pronounced ringing), but, again, I'm not sure if it isn't just source related

15. same scene and doesn't look as sharpened

16. back to him and it looks sharpened again

17. and here as well

18. both HDR and (IMO) intact/better resolved stylized source noise in this scene (#3 1000 nits)

19.

20. looks rather processed, but so does the BD (#3 1000 nits)

21. (#3 1000 nits)

22. (#3 1000 nits)

23. as said initally, nice upgrade without sharpening

24. very nice improvement reg. the highlights even with the 200 nits cap

25. rather pronounced, odd ringing (look at the branches of the tree) - I did notice it only on the caps

26.

27.

28.

29. (#3 1000 nits)

30.

31. (#3 1000 nits)

32.

33.

34. (#3 1000 nits)

35.

36. (#3 1000 nits)

37.

38.

39.

40. slightly more detail and the UHD issues do look somewhat source related to me once more

41. partly more DNR on the UHD (faces), but still better imo

[Geoff D]

In #14 there's clearly some enhancement in the BD shot, look at the dark outlines around the high contrast areas like the bright edge of her hard hat or the nailgun, reminds me of an unsharp mask. But the UHD amps it up even more on top of that, adding those thin high-frequency halos on top of the darker unsharp mask outline.

[andreasy969]

Yes, the halo on top of the nail gun in particular is the reason why #14 got a comment reg. sharpened. But as you say, it's there on the BD already (EDIT: and might just "got lost" on the BD, which I don't really think though - in this shot in particular -, but with others it might be the case imo). It's sharpened at any rate and if it wasn't shot digitally, there'd be no doubt about the UHD being sharpened. As it stands, I'm giving the UHD the tiniest benefit of the doubt. (I also think the UHD is sharpened. Don't get me wrong. Hong Hong just cannot do without it, so it seems. I've seen the same with another release. Can't remember the title right now.)

[andreasy969]

Tomb Raider

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/117524

BD (upscaled) left, UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) right

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim:

[Show spoiler]Please note that the UHD-BD shots have been converted from HDR to SDR using special techniques, which drastically compresses the dynamic range of the original image (the color bit depth has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colors (tone and intensity) and contrast should be taken with a big pinch of salt and the main focus should be on comparing details. Typically, the image will appear too dark (which is by design when the caps are done at 200 nits; on its own they should be viewed with monitor brightness set to 200 nits), may lack a certain "pop" and may at times also appear "boosted" when compared to the BD shots. The SDR conversion should still give you a good idea of the actual image of the UHD-BD though and one should also be able to at least catch a glimpse of the increased dynamic range. The BD shots have been upscaled for comparison purposes, but other than that should be accurate. You might also want to check out this post of mine (incl. the further link there) where I tried to show/explain this:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=589

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. (#3 1000 nits)

8.

9.

10.

11. (#3 1000 nits, #4 3000 nits)

12.

[andreasy969]

Hacksaw Ridge

Two comments below. Other than that the UHD is smashing the BD throughout, be that with wide shots or close-ups: 10, 12 (just look at the clock), 13, 14, 18 ... - basically pick whichever you want. Both discs, the BD in particular, are from the UK release.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/117541

BD (upscaled) left, UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) right

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim:

[Show spoiler]Please note that the UHD-BD shots have been converted from HDR to SDR using special techniques, which drastically compresses the dynamic range of the original image (the color bit depth has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colors (tone and intensity) and contrast should be taken with a big pinch of salt and the main focus should be on comparing details. Typically, the image will appear too dark (which is by design when the caps are done at 200 nits; on its own they should be viewed with monitor brightness set to 200 nits), may lack a certain "pop" and may at times also appear "boosted" when compared to the BD shots. The SDR conversion should still give you a good idea of the actual image of the UHD-BD though and one should also be able to at least catch a glimpse of the increased dynamic range. The BD shots have been upscaled for comparison purposes, but other than that should be accurate. You might also want to check out this post of mine (incl. the further link there) where I tried to show/explain this:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=589

1.

2.

3. the source is having some problems in this scene (#3 1000 nits)

4.

5. another case of Lionsgate using a slightly different master on the UHD (the leafs on the left)

6. and both being identical again in the next shot

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22. (#3 1000 nits)

23.

24.

25. (#3 1000 nits)

26.

27.

28. (#3 1000 nits)

29.

30. (#3 1000 nits)

31.

[Geoff D]

Jeez, there's more of a difference in detail there with this upscale than on some actual 4K-mastered stuff, it's just a terrific disc. Not without a few minor issues but damn, it looks good. And great catch with the leaves, looks like there was a crew member lurking in there? I noted something similar in the review of GI Joe that I just posted, the UHD having a few scratches which are not on the BD.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And great catch with the leaves, looks like there was a crew member lurking in there?

Not sure what exactly it is, but yes, I guess (whatever it is) they didn't want to have it there at any rate.


Jason Bourne

Since caps still didn't do Jason, I thought I'd "close" the Bourne chapter next ...

I think part 5 provides the kind of upgrade, parts 2 and 3 should have provided (the cloak of silence is better cast on part 1 and 4 is another story as well): Everything's improved here from a sheer technical point of view, but it is so without being a step backwards in the detail department. I was expecting even a slightly bigger improvement detail-wise here, but I guess it just is what it is with this movie.

It's also one of those cases where the UHD really looks much nicer/more "solid" for lack of a better word in motion even though the caps may often seem to be a rather minor upgrade (the scene from #34 is a good example that comes to my mind). Having said that, Universal really did a great job with the BD here at any rate (I don't think the same can be said about Lionsgate/Hacksaw Ridge for example).

For detail increase you might want to take a look at #6, #8, #35, #36 or the last one (there are others as well and I also added some comments). I found the highlights to be much improved in #28 and #29.

On a side note: I found taking "proper" "Bourne movie" caps a slight pain more often than not due to shaky-cam/fast-cut "hell" (I tend to try to take caps when there isn't too much movement ...).

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/117619

BD (upscaled) left, UHD-BD (madVR/SDR/200 nits) right

Disclaimer as to why the UHD-BD images may appear to be too dim:

[Show spoiler]Please note that the UHD-BD shots have been converted from HDR to SDR using special techniques, which drastically compresses the dynamic range of the original image (the color bit depth has been compressed as well). The UHD-BD shots are therefore not an accurate representation of the original HDR image - dynamic range, colors (tone and intensity) and contrast should be taken with a big pinch of salt and the main focus should be on comparing details. Typically, the image will appear too dark (which is by design when the caps are done at 200 nits; on its own they should be viewed with monitor brightness set to 200 nits), may lack a certain "pop" and may at times also appear "boosted" when compared to the BD shots. The SDR conversion should still give you a good idea of the actual image of the UHD-BD though and one should also be able to at least catch a glimpse of the increased dynamic range. The BD shots have been upscaled for comparison purposes, but other than that should be accurate. You might also want to check out this post of mine (incl. the further link there) where I tried to show/explain this:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...&postcount=589

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. more detail on the monitor

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12. more detail on the tie

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18. one can actually read the license plate on the UHD

19. a clearly resolved "2" on the train

20.

21. simply better resolved - the blue face for ex.

22.

23. a hair on both

24.

25. nice upgrade here

26. plenty of Trump in this movie and better resolved Hilton lettering; better resolved title as well

27.

28. improved highlight detail in the next two

29.

30.

31. clearly improved "Exocon", BD noise on the left gone and some (I suppose source) aliasing on the left

32. Trump again (completely unrelated, I just cannot help but notice nowadays)

33. UHD simply being more refined

34. this whole scene in particular looks much nicer to me on the UHD despite the difference seeming not that big - BD looks somewhat "ugly" in comparison ("too bright"* and compression); *I included a 100 nits cap for comparison purposes (#3 100 nits)

35. nice upgrade in this scene (next three) near the end

36.

37.

38. improved end credits

[Geoff D]

Always liked the look of JB on UHD, people have been crapping over it since the start but just because something's not eye candy doesn't mean it can't still be a very solid upgrade.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And great catch with the leaves, looks like there was a crew member lurking in there?

I think it's the first sign of the predator on UHD.

[Geoff D]

We need a WWII-set Predator movie, like, now.

[Geoff D]

Having looked at the caps properly the JB UHD smokes the Blu-ray and I stand by every stinkin' word wot I writed here 18 months ago: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...4#post13158004

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Having looked at the caps properly the JB UHD smokes the Blu-ray and I stand by every stinkin' word wot I writed here 18 months ago: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...4#post13158004

Yes, you did well.

Going by said comment (the "yellow part" in particular) I also assumed that the colors of the SDR conversion are not completely screwed up (?).

[Geoff D]

If I'm being perfectly honest I think the SDR conversions of late are adding a bit too much pink (they're still the best around, mind you) but we can see how yellowy the SDR skin tones are in any case.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

If I'm being perfectly honest I think the SDR conversions of late are adding a bit too much pink

Thx. I didn't change anything though. But no worries, you're not hurting my feelings by pointing out "bad colors" at any rate. The opposite is the case resp. I appretiate it.

I also still think that Panasonic is doing a better job with the colors. But madVR is doing a better job with "problematic" discs. And I think it must have sth. to do with madVR just ignoring the meta data completely. I can name at least 2 releases that caused trouble with the Panasonic which have confirmed effed up meta data (one being Blade Runner 2049 (US), the other one being Spiderman Homecoming - the former being too dark, the latter being too bright and the meta data of the former being too high and the meta data of the latter being too low - and I guess I am seeing a pattern there ...).

[avs commenter]

Thought I would re-post this from the Infinity War Thread. Top UHD, bottom HD

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

We need a WWII-set Predator movie, like, now.

Predators vs Nazis.

'Gotten himmel, es ist ein Raubtier!"

[Geoff D]

It's "Gott im Himmel"

Yes, I be correcting shit even in other languages yo

[TheSweetieMan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Always liked the look of JB on UHD, people have been crapping over it since the start but just because something's not eye candy doesn't mean it can't still be a very solid upgrade.

I didn't know Jason Bourne had any critics.

It was one of the first 10 discs I bought, and I thought it looked fantastic.

Also, I need to take another second to appreciate how damn good Zero Dark Thirty looks. Love that disc. Love that film.

[Geoff D]

Folks were saying the usual, that they couldn't seen any improvement etc etc. The foot's on the other hand now!

[Pieter V]

Any screens of Lone Survivor (2013)?